LET US HEAR FROM YOU!
We welcome letters to the editor on issues presented in the magazine. Email letters to wabarnews@wsba.org. All opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed in letters to the editor represent the views of the respective authors and do not necessarily carry the endorsement of the WSBA or its Board of Governors. Publication of letters to the editor is not to be deemed an endorsement of the opinions, statements, and conclusions expressed by the author(s).
Prepare for Impact
Speaking of lawyer wellness and substance abuse, I want some of whatever our President Hunter Abell is on. It must be right up there with ayahuasca. The Sixth Amendment is crumbling before us, and he wants us to get fitted for space suits. Granted, if a coordinated alliance of dedicated, civil, compassionate, and fearless “guardians of justice” does exist, it is surely on some other planet—but the WSBA doesn’t really guard much but the status quo—and this, my fellow space rangers, is faulty trajectory [responding to “President’s Corner: Lawyers as Guardians,” March 2024 Bar News].
It was always foolhardy to rely on the interest on client trust accounts and the good graces of a minority of attorneys willing to donate their time to cover the civil legal needs of our communities, but now the criminal space chickens are coming home to roost. Of the over 35,000 WSBA members on this planet, only a few thousand litigate; and only a small percentage of those actually have the mix of skills and inner fortitude it takes to even step into a courtroom, much less zealously defend the constitutional rights of the criminally accused. Furthermore, unlike in the movies, doing that job to the best of your ability will get you blacklisted, if it doesn’t kill you first. This past year the Supreme Court has once again expanded the list of types of cases people should get an appointed attorney for; just as several Washington counties are suing the state to be relieved of the obligation to fund them.
The WSBA’s answer to the resulting statewide defense attorney crisis appears to be to make it harder to be one, by way of (unfunded) “enhanced defense attorney standards” which once again boil down to mere “experience” versus any other qualifications—which does not define or ensure a “good” or even “adequate” attorney. What it does do is keep the old guard in place and the door shut to diversity and stagnates any effort at systemic improvement, despite all the pretty words to the contrary. I started to get upset thinking about it, but then I realized no one actually enforces these things.
And by the way, where are the “enhanced prosecutorial standards?” Often hired with no experience at all (and some now not having passed a bar exam)—they have exclusive discretion over when, how, and against whom criminal (and many civil) cases are brought (including a myriad of constitutionally questionable “diversion” programs), and also have all too much influence on the form and substance of defense attorney contracts (if not their direct selection)—They are at the very least a factor in the dysfunction equation, but I have a feeling we will populate Mars before that is properly examined.
Ground Control to Major Hunter: She’s giving ye all she’s got, but her engines are failing, and according to my calculations, we’re headed in the wrong direction. Best prepare for impact.
C. Olivia Irwin, Colville
Words to Live By
After reading Mark de Regt’s letter to [the] editor (March 2024 Bar News), the words of the First Amendment came to mind: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The lawfare and cancel culture which consume the news these days are an affront to the principles contained in these words.
What happened to the code of conduct that yielded this familiar quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? ( S.G. Tallantyre, The Friends of Voltaire).
Mr. Regt will be surprised to learn that his impression of cancel culture on campuses is wrong. Of the demonstrations against guest speakers documented by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), the political left was behind 289 of them while 134 were attributed to the political right (“The courage to not cancel,” Deseret News, Aug 8, 2021).
Two wrongs do not make a right, but let us at least attribute accurately where the majority of the intolerance for free speech lies. Let us take a hard look at political intimidation in all its forms and adopt a new respect for free speech—free speech for ALL—lest our founding fathers roll over in their graves and the Constitution is lost in the swirling waters of the Potomac.
Inez Petersen, Enumclaw
AI Ain’t Ready
The March issue of Bar News contained an article entitled, “Citing GenAI.” This is just the latest article on the subject of artificial intelligence. The author, Amanda K. Stephen, was trying to discuss the proper way to cite material generated by AI. This statement begs the question of whether what is generated by AI can be used in places which require reference to the source of the material; e.g., decisions, legal pleadings, and documents.
On page 19, Stephen says:
If it is constantly learning, will you get an identical output even if you input the same prompts as the original user? Interestingly, when I asked ChatGPT 3.5 whether it always provides an identical response for an identical prompt, it said:
Nope! While I strive for consistency in accuracy and helpfulness, my responses might vary slightly based on context, the specific phrasing of the prompt, and any new information or insights I might have at the moment. So while you might receive a similar answer to a similar question, it won’t be identical every time. [Footnote omitted.]
In law, research is done primarily for showing how courts have previously dealt with a similar issue as the one at bar. It is extremely important that any quotations be copied exactly and cited properly so that the reader can go back and see what the previous court said. Was it quoted accurately? Was it taken out of context? Has it been reversed on appeal? Has it been changed or modified by another decision? Every lawyer has to get the exact same text as what was put into the document. What good does it do if every attorney who looks up 573 U.S. 25 (2014) gets a slightly different text, which may or may not change the substance of the quote? If eight attorneys ask the same question to ChatGPT 3.5 and it gives eight different responses, what value will the statement have in a case?
There are two subjects which AI does not appear to have the ability to effectively work in: critical thinking and morality. Both require subjective thought processes and creative ideas—neither
of which is found in a database.
What is missing from ChatGPT 3.5, and all of the materials which I have seen on AI, is evidence that the databases are secured against people accessing them and creating havoc with a database. There have been cases in which the apparent skin color of some people, including the founders of the country, was changed. There is also the case where AI was used to make a portrait of Taylor Swift which did not look anything like her.
Despite all of the claims about AI, it does not appear to be ready for the courtroom.
Peter H. Arkison, Bellingham
More on U.P.S. Law School Sale
Seattle University School of Law is evidence of vision and foresight [responding to “Pssssst … Want to Buy a Law School?” April/May 2024 Bar News]. Founded when Weyerhaeuser Company Chairman Norton Clapp led the University of Puget Sound Board of Trustees, its opening in Tacoma represented the singular influence of that University of Chicago Law School graduate to impact higher education in the West as Puget Sound aspired in the ’60s to grow like its Oregon peer in the Methodist tradition, Willamette University. Clapp later refined Puget Sound’s mission in the eighties for it to become more like Occidental College, his alma mater noted for its especially high undergraduate education standards. Meanwhile, Father William Sullivan, representing the best in the Jesuit character for ingenuity and heroic leadership, capped his time strengthening Seattle University from the ’70s by accepting stewardship of Puget Sound’s law school as each institution evolved in the ’90s. Seattle and Tacoma civic turf tussles about a law school’s location mean nothing in comparison to the vision of those men and their impact on the lives of lawyers in this region. Clapp and Sullivan mattered; Seattle University School of Law is evidence of their respective good characters and regional community impact.
Jonathan Feste, South Bend
Letters to the editor published in Bar News must respond to content presented in the magazine and also comply with Washington General Rule 12.2 and Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990).* Bar News may limit the number of letters published based on available space in a particular issue and, if many letters are received in response to a specific piece in the magazine, may select letters that provide differing viewpoints to publish. Bar News does not publish anonymous letters or more than one letter from the same contributor per issue. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity, civility, and grammatical accuracy.
*GR 12.2(c) states that the WSBA is not authorized to “(1) Take positions on issues concerning the politics or social positions of foreign nations; (2) Take positions on political or social issues which do not relate to or affect the practice of law or the administration of justice; or (3) Support or oppose, in an election, candidates for public office.” In Keller v. State Bar of California, the Court ruled that a bar association may not use mandatory member fees to support political or ideological activities that are not reasonably related to the regulation of the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.